Was THAT question to Gingrich a setup?

When I tuned in the first question to Gingrich was a short, direct question about his former marriage.

Gingrich was well prepared for that question wasn't he? His response covered all of the bases, and I hate to admit, it was excellent. He took the
finger pointed at him and returned it to media and other areas in spades.

I question whether there was some funny business with the fellow (a reporter?) asking that question about Gingrich about his former marriage and the
mini-tirade Gingrich launched in return. Surely, the questioner--knowing Gringrich as even we sheeple know him--was prepared for a fiery answer
exactly as given.

Some of the viewers might have thought it was a "Gotcha" question, but it did not turn out that way--nor would it ever would have to a crafty
politician.. So I'm left wondering if there were some insider orchestration being pulled on the public? Surely, that question was vetted by big
shots at CNN so it would not have been off the top of the guy's head..A large part of that counterattack on the media was a broadside to ABC (if
unstated) for the broadcast of the ex-wife's account. And CNN would have been quite pleased with that.

Gingrich won a lot of votes with that response. But, you should wonder, why...? Because people believed him in his denial rather than his wife's
version, or because he turned the tables on the media and made a major, dramatic production of it? Probably both reasons because those were
somethings that were almost tangible that the average voter could get a grasp on instead of mind-numbing discussion of fiscal policies, etc.

Absolutely. John King and Gingrich even hi-fived after the debate, did you catch that? Any commentator knew Gingrich would have murdered that
question.. Then what do you get the next day? All the pundits focused on this one initial response, which had NOTHING to do with the issues, and led
to the first time a candidate drew two standing ovations in the last 30 years of SC debates. Hardly anything was discussed the next day about the
rest of the debate.

Yes, it was, kinda. It was a softball that Gingrich was well prepared for. He knew it was coming. On the other hand, the newsman was between a rock
and a hard place. If he hadn't asked it, the only question about his performance was why he did not. he was kind of trapped by circumstance.

The fact is that Gingrich is a very good debater and very fast on his feet. You should never try "Gotcha!" questions on Gingrich because he will
twist them to his advantage every time. You could get someone like Perry very easily, but not Gingrich.

I am not a Gingrich supporter, but that's how I see this. I also don't much care about his private life. If you want to be fair about it, Taft,
Roosevelt, Kennedy, Johnson, and Clinton all did a lot worse, and that's just those we have documentation on. Taft had a child out of wedlock before
he was President. The last four cheated on their wives while in office.

The odd thing about Gingrich's ex-wife is that she did the same thing she complains his present wife did, start an affair with him while he was
married. Curiously, ABC never asked her about that.

I thought Gingrich's response was obnoxious. Set up or not ... it was obnoxious. He (supposedly) got all hot and flustered about being asked about
it. He tried to turn the tables on the CNN fella to make him look like the bad guy. But the only bad guy was Gingrich who abandoned two wives while
being a liar and a cheat to both of them.

The only people who were impressed with his act was his entire family in the first two rows. That room was full of hard core rupublicans. What's
going to happen when the debates with Obama take place with a mixed crowd?

The GOP is seriously out of touch with the real world and have no chance in this election unless they get off their high horse and soften up on some
of their stances. Paul is thier only hope, but since he can't be brought he will not get the nomination. I hope I am wrong though.

Okay, if you or me was in Gingrich's shoes what would be the best strategy here? You know you have this in your past. Right now your mainly
battling Repubs, Obama hasn't even gotten started yet. You know this is going to come out eventually. So what do you do? Do you sit around and go
to bed worried sick every night about it? Saying to yourself, "Wow, i'm so glad no one outed this today about my ex-wife", then to go on hoping it
never comes out? Or do you sit down, talk to your ex, explain to her that even though things were rocky you need her to do this for the sake of the
kids? I think the wife would agree. Besides, i'm sure after this many years, behind the scenes, Newt and Marianne have are on speaking terms and
probably have a friendly relationship with one another.

So, I think the best strategy for Newt would be to "out" it himself. That way you stop any and all other opposition from doing it and catching you
off guard. You out it yourself so you can handle the damage control the way it needs to be handled. Sounds like the best strategy to take here. I
promise you, as hard as it was for her, Marianne was in on this as well. Do you really not want the father of your children to be PoTuS? Your kids
would be taken care of for life. This was orchestrated to stop opposition from hurting his campaign and so Newt himself could control the opposition
or damage to further project him to the Republican lead. I for one, respect the strategy. I think it was very well played and would have done the
same thing myself.

In the end, it will come down between Newt and Obama. Now that Newt has all his dirty laundry aired, Obama will have nothing to attack. Not even
Newt's presidential follies because Newt's never been President. Newt is going to go after all of Obama's though. Either way, it's going to be a
very very tough fight for Obama. He won't pull this off as easy as McCain...if Obama pulls it off at all.

No not really. It was headline news of the day. Gingrich expected the question and knew how he was gonna answer it before he had lunch. It was far
from a hardball question. A real question would have been to ask how he can call himself 1.) A Christian by ignoring one of the most basic tenets of
his faith. 2.) A fiscal conservative against government waste when he personally lead a a multimillion dollar witch hunt on the sitting President,
while he himself was engaging in the same activity. Knowing full well the people already knew the truth about Clinton well before they elected him the
first time 3.) A human being, after leaving his first wife with cancer. 4.) How he can say felons that have served their time and completed their
sentence shouldn't be able to vote, yet expects America to forgive his mistakes and indiscretions.

None of these debates have asked very hard questions when it comes to character issues.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.